We have only two choices with the virus
Remember when Dr. Fauci was telling us that we were too stupid to do lockdowns right, and that Italy did it the correct way?
“When we shut down as a nation,” he said in July, “in reality only about 50% of the nation shut down … In many of the European countries, 90, 95% of all activities were shut down. So that is one of the reasons why [in Italy] the cases came down…and then stayed.”
Now Italy is having its biggest case numbers of the whole episode. Oops!
The Daily Beast just wrote: “What’s particularly troubling about the return of COVID in Italy is that the country has done everything experts like Dr. Anthony Fauci have been advising.”
Gee, what a surprise! Who could have predicted that — except, I guess, everyone who’s been paying attention for the past seven months.
In the presidential debate last night, Joe Biden made clear he’d listen to Dr. Fauci, which he equates with “listening to the science.”
Also, Biden warned about teachers dying, even though nowhere in the world have teachers been found to have higher COVID-19 morbidity than people in any other profession. That was just a fact-free sop to the unions.
He also ridiculed the suggestion that ultimately we’d have to learn to live with the virus, as if this was some kind of bizarre, misanthropic proposal as opposed to a brute fact of reality that was clear to a lot of us from the beginning.
As a matter of fact, a search for “learn to live with the virus” yielded the following radical right-wing results (I apologize for having to point out that that term is meant to be satirical, but the 3% of people on this list who won’t get it will write to me in anger):
“Covid: Is it time we learned to live with the virus?” — BBC News
“We’re going to have to learn to live with the virus, says EU health boss” — euronews
“Covid-19: Virologist Urges ‘Learn to Live With the Virus'” — Bloomberg
“Europe Is Learning to Live With the Coronavirus” — New York Times
Alex Berenson correctly concludes:
“Virus gonna virus.
“We can live with that reality and manage the consequences, mainly by making sure our hospitals are prepared (they are).
“Or we can destroy our society for a virus that most people won’t even know they have.
“Those are our only choices.”
They are indeed.
I actually had a house party for the Tom Woods Show Elite last week. Plenty of food, drink, laughter, and camaraderie. For five solid hours, people from around the United States got to live like human beings once again. It’s a great group, and a haven from the anti-life lunatics we’re surrounded by every day.
Entry is this way: www.
Please Donate Below To Support Our Ongoing Work To Expose The Lies About COVID19
PRINCIPIA SCIENTIFIC INTERNATIONAL, legally registered in the UK as a company 
incorporated for charitable purposes. Head Office: 27 Old Gloucester Street, London WC1N 3AX.
Please DONATE TODAY To Help Our Non-Profit Mission To Defend The Scientific Method.
Trackback from your site.
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi John O’, a founder and the editor of PSI,
Thank you for posting Tom Woods very recent article. I had no idea who Tom Woods is or what he has done but I researched him. So I do now. He is not a scientist but that’s okay. For Woods (and John) reminds us that in science there are usually two choices: one that is absolutely wrong and the other maybe the truth. Maybe, because good scientists accept that our method of observation cannot prove any truth because of the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle. For Heisenberg simply reasoned that the mechanism of observation forces the conclusion that we only observe what ‘was’ and therefore we can never know what ‘is’. Yes, there is a little more to his reason but this is my simple summation of his reasoning.
But relative to many two choices in science, the choices are not so subtle. The earth stands still or it rotates about an axis and revolves about the sun. Or currently, the earth’s average surface temperature would be about 33C (58F) degree less than those currently measured if not for atmospheric carbon dioxide molecules (and other trace gases with a similar physical property) in the ‘natural’ atmosphere or there there is an observed scientific law which prohibits the ‘natural’ atmosphere from being less than that measured.
What is a scientific law? A scientific law is merely a summary of similar observations (or measurements) for which there has never been observed an exception. (And I do not need to reference who defined a scientific law for it has become common scientific knowledge.). Hence a scientific law is not a hypothesis, not a theory, not an explanation; it merely predicts what will be observed in specific circumstances.
And the scientific law which absolutely refutes the prediction of the greenhouse effect of atmospheric carbon dioxide is that the temperature of the ‘natural’ atmosphere has never been less that that atmosphere’s observed dew point temperature (DPT). Which DPT is not related to water molecules’ property which makes water molecules to also be a greenhouse gas with similar properties to that of the carbon dioxide. So the choice is the greenhouse effect of atmospheric carbon dioxide a possibly valid theory or is it an absolute ‘false’ theory? And the answer is simple if one only looks at the frost on their car’s windows when it sets outside during the nighttime when the air temperature at the same height of the windows is above the freezing temperature of water–0C or 32F.
Science is simple if one lonely observes (or measures as the case may require). For my example requires tha the of the air be measured.
Have a good day, Jerry
Reply
Tom O
| #
I know there is a relevant point here, right?
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi Tom O,
I admit to making too many errors in not writing the words I intended etc. But I write and the reader must comprehend. If my possible errors hinder this comprehension process, ask me specific questions and I will attempt to clarify that which you seem unable to comprehend.
Have a good day, Jerry
Reply
Lloyd
| #
The specific question is do you realize you rambled on for extra paragraphs and some of us have no idea what the point is that you are trying to make?
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi Lloyd,
Here is a specific question back at you, who claim that I have “rambled on extra paragraphs”: do you realize that you, or maybe Tom O, are the one (ones) making the judgement that I have rambled on unnecessarily?
I rest my case (rambling) with two quotes. “The temptation to form premature theories upon insufficient data is the bane of our profession.” and “It is a capital mistake to theorize before you have all the evidence, it biases the judgment.” (Arthur Conan Doyle)
About the atmosphere we did not have the data produced by the systematic atmospheric sounding of the atmosphere before WWII because there was not the technology (radar) to track the balloons and its simple instrument package. Which has the ability to transmit the data they measure back to some central location where it is stored by electronic computers which did not exist before WWII. So before and during WWII meteorologists predicted on the basis of the limited data being measured at the earth’s surface. And the primarily function of meteorologists today is still to predict weather.
And I continue to ramble for another paragraph. For I point out one specific example of what they had no idea about before WWII but now is a critically important fact they now use to predict major ‘storm’ events. No, I will not tell you what this fact is.
For you, who claim I ramble so you cannot comprehend my points must be able to tell the PSI readers what it is that we learn from the data of atmospheric soundings which we (in the USA) did not generally know before WWII. And here is a clue: But the Japanese did. So write another comment to tell the PSI readers what this atmospheric something is.
Have a good day, Jerry
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi Lloyd and Tom O,
I have decided to ramble a bit more about ‘two choices’ as a review a little more about historical facts.
Richard Feynman was a curious fellow and a talented physicist who like to tell stories about his experiences. I will only review a bit about what you can read more in his book (“Surely You’re Joking, Mr. Feynman!”). Which experience was that he was given two choices and he chose both.
“I go through the door, and there are some ladies, and some girls, too. It’s all very formal and I’m thinking about where to sit down, and should I sit next to this girl, or not, and how should I behave, when I hear a voice behind me.
“ “Would you like cream or lemon in your tea, Mr. Feynman?” It’s Mrs. Eisenhart , pouring tea.
“ “I’ll have both, thank you.” I say, still looking for where I’m going to sit, when suddenly I hear. “Heh-Heh-Heh-Heh-Heh. Surly you’re joking, Mr. Feynman.”
“Joking? Joking? What the hell did I just say? Then I realized what I had done. So that was my first experience with this tea business.”
Do you see Feynman’s point in reviewing this tea business?
Have a good day, Jerry
Reply
Matt Holl
| #
Hi Dr. Krause and readers.
Jerry, as a Doctor of chemistry and someone who has read more of the writings of other notable scientists than almost any other person there is much you know about science which can be of value to others, especially to many PSI readers like myself who are not scientists.
The comments on this page mention “dew Points” and car windshield dew freezing when the air temperature is above freezing, carbon dioxide and water molecules having some similar hothouse effect properties.
It would be great if you could explain these things simply so that a simpleton such as myself could understand it.
You wrote. “For you, who claim I ramble so you cannot comprehend my points must be able to tell the PSI readers what it is that we learn from the data of atmospheric soundings which we (in the USA) did not generally know before WWII. And here is a clue: But the Japanese did. So write another comment to tell the PSI readers what this atmospheric something is.”
So yes, please write another comment ” to tell the PSI readers what this atmospheric something is.”
Many of us readers of PSI without scientific knowledge do not have a lifetime to spare to follow up on cryptic directions in the hope of discovering what you already understand.
If you ever wish to explain these things, simply, in an article, I would be prepared to edit the article for you. If an article is published where I can understand it, then most others will be able to understand it.
Best wishes and thank you. Matt
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi MattH,
Thank you for the good words and for your request. Background: “You wrote. “For you, who claim I ramble so you cannot comprehend my points must be able to tell the PSI readers what it is that we learn from the data of atmospheric soundings which we (in the USA) did not generally know before WWII. And here is a clue: But the Japanese did. So write another comment to tell the PSI readers what this atmospheric something is.”
So yes, please write another comment ” to tell the PSI readers what this atmospheric something is.”
It is the atmospheric jet stream which transported hydrogen balloons carrying incendiary devices (more than a 1000) from Japan to the USA as Far East as the midwest during one winter of WWII.
Now there is a significant coincidence. This morning there was no storm, instead there was a very clear sky, whose temperature measured with my inexpensive IR thermometer was neg. 45F and the winds, typically calm, were measured to be 10 to little less than 20mph at the local airport about 3 miles distant. And from this airport an atmospheric sounding balloon was launched at 4am local time. And a jet stream with a velocity of over 100mph was observed. So I must conclude, if I ramble a bit, that there is some relationship between the winds and the surface and the jet stream much higher at the top of the troposphere. Something an atmospheric scientist should be able to explain but I have not read much (anything) being generally written about jet streams. Have to admit, I should have gone to wikipedia to see what I might find). And I will just do this after submit this comment.
Have a good day, Jerry
Reply
Charles Higley
| #
““What’s particularly troubling about the return of COVID in Italy is that the country has done everything experts like Dr. Anthony Fauci have been advising.”
I call BS! They have more false positive tests and not more cases. You have to be ill to be a case. AND the death rate stays down. It an epidemic of testing.
TIME TO STOP TESTING ALTOGETHER.
IT’S A WASTE OF TIME AND MONEY.
ONLY POLITICIANS ARE ALL FOR IT.
Reply
Veri Tas
| #
… and those who profit from producing, selling, administering and analysing the tests.
Example:
Shares in companies like Quest Diagnostics and Laboratory Corporation of America are soaring. Quest’s Chief Financial Officer Mark Guinan said on Thursday that detecting Covid-19 brings “good margins.”
Reply
Finn McCool
| #
“THE” virus?
Surely the author means “Another” virus. One which is particularly “undeadly”.
Has anyone seen the ‘decadeofhealth’ adverts on TV or visited the website?
All bought and paid for by those lovely people, Bill and Melinda Gates. Bless them.
Who needs clean water, affordable housing, good infrastructure, schools, transport, sewerage, cheap power when you can have some numpty who will give you a pill or a jab to cure all your troubles and make all your dreams come true? Dreams prescribed by Purdue Pharma perhaps?
Aye, right.
Reply
Allan Shelton
| #
Fauci is an Italian surname. It is derived from the Sicilian word for “sickle”, and originated as an occupational surname referring metonymically to makers of sickles. In Italy, 151 families bear the surname Fauci, with 67 in Sicily and 35 in Campania.
Reply
JaKo
| #
Thanks Allan,
Now I got it — talking about comments from “the gentleman who calls himself Dean Michael Jackson” — The Sickle and Hammer; I think it is just a matter of time to ID the Hammer…
Cheers, JaKo
Reply
MattH
| #
Hi Jerry and PSI readers.
Interesting about the incendiary balloons.
After the W,W.11 battle of the Coral Sea and then the Pacific War defining Battle of Midway in 1942 the Japanese Navy were left without Aircraft Carriers.
Incendiary balloons on the Jetstream in effect became the new aircraft carriers in 1944-1945.
How did they control them to only target progressives?
Have a nice Day. Matt
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi MattH,
You wrote: “there is much you know about science which can be of value to others, especially to many PSI readers like myself who are not scientists.”
In writing this I consider you naively place the burden of your learning about science on me instead of yourself. Given your comments, I see that you depreciate your ability to learn of which you regularly demonstrate via your comments.
I do not like to repeat but I must repeat one of Galileo’s wise quotes. “We cannot teach people anything; we can only help them discover it within themselves.” So the burden of learning is on the shoulders of the learner. Not upon what the teacher may furnish to the student (learner) in an attempt to help you, and any others, to find it in yourself (s).
My curse is that I have read much and therefore forgotten much. One thing I just remembered is more than once I told my students, when they asked me to do just what you have asked. I can best help you by not helping you. This before I had read Lane Cooper’s 1917 book (Louis Agassiz As A Teacher). And you should read the 1914 English translation of Galileo’s book and Cooper’s 1917 book before you ask anyone else to teach you about this thing termed science most efficiently. Or even to actually learn anything about science.
Now I going to ramble and tell you a story about Feynman and how he described in ‘ “What Do You Care What Other People Think?” ‘ how his father taught him to become a scientist. And I read how Feynman’s family could never determine how his father knew anything about science.
I consider that they never consider the fact that the English translation of Galileo’s book was published in 1914 and that Cooper’s book was published in 1917 and that Richard Feynman was born iin 5/11/1918.
And I ponder why Einstein had stated: “The secret to creativity is knowing how to hide your sources.”?
Have a good day, Jerry
Reply